The Mishnah in Get Pashut rules that if Reuven lends Shimon money ...

... with a Sh'tar he is permitted to claim from Meshubadim, but ...

... with witnesses (orally) he is not.

We reject the suggestion that Rav (who just said that a purchaser who buys a field with witnesses may claim from Meshubadim), argues with the Mishnah, since he is a Tana who has the power to dispute a Mishnah, based on a statement of Rav and Shmuel, who said that - one cannot claim an oral loan from Meshubadim, but one can, a documented one.

To reconcile Rav's two statements we differentiate between an oral sale (which one can claim from Meshubadim, as we just explained) and an oral loan (which one cannot).

The reason for this distinction is - because a seller tends to publicize the fact that he is selling (in order to attract customers [making it easy for subsequent purchasers to discover that this field has already been sold once]), whereas a borrower tends to borrow discreetly, in order to avoid the value of his property from depreciating, should he subsequently decide to sell a field (making it difficult for subsequent purchasers to discover that the field is Meshubad).

The Beraisa states that if someone establishes one year of Chazakah, and his son, the other two or vice-versa, or if a purchaser establishes the third year - the Chazakah is valid.

We extrapolate from the fact that the purchaser can finalize the Chazakah that when someone buys from a Yoresh, there is a Kol - because otherwise, the owner would be able to argue that he did not make a Mecha'ah, because he was unaware of the purchase.

Another Beraisa rules that if someone establishes a Chazakah one year in front of the original owner and two in front of his son, or vice-versa, or a third year in front of someone who purchases the field from the son - it is a Chazakah ...

... appearing to clash with the first Beraisa - since it implies that when someone buys from a Yoresh, there is no Kol, because if there was, then the very sale should serve as a Mecha'ah, warning the Machzik to look after his Sh'tar.

To reconcile the second Beraisa with the first, Rav Papa establishes it by a Yoresh who sold all his father's fields S'tam ...

... and although the purchaser claims that this field was included in the sale, there is no proof that it was, and the Machzik is therefore not aware that he needs to look after his Sh'tar.

We refute the contention that the seller sold all his father's fields, specifying this one among them since - that is not what 'S'tam' implies.

Our Mishnah now discusses 'Umnin' - (craftsmen who have been engaged to effect repairs in the house), Shutfin, Arisin and Apotropsin'.

The Tana rules that they cannot establish a Chazakah.

The Chazakah of Umnin differs from the other three inasmuch as - the Chazakah referred to there is immediate (and not one of three years, like the others).

The reason for this distinction is because - whereas the other cases refer to a Chazakah on Karka, Umnin refers to a Chazakah on Metaltelin ...

... that one does not normally lend or rent out - because otherwise they would never be subject to a Chazakah under any circumstances.

Rabeinu Gershom precludes 'Umnin' from the text because - if Shutfin cannot establish a Chazakah, then it is obvious that Umnin can't either.

The Chazakah will not be effective in the case of ...

... Shutfin - because it is customary for partners to take turns to eat the fruit, each one for three or four years.

... Arisin - because the owner can counter that he sold the Aris his own share of the fruit, for which the latter still has to pay, or because it is customary to take turns to eat the fruit for five or even ten years at a stretch (like we explained by Shutfin).

When the Tana rules that ...

... a man cannot establish a Chazakah on his wife's property, he is referring - to her Nechsei Milug, which she takes back after his death or in the event that he divorces her.

... a woman cannot establish a Chazakah on her husband's property he is referring - to picking and eating the fruit that grows in his field, which she does with his consent.

Finally the Tana inserts the case of a father on the property of the son and vice-versa, in the list of those who cannot establish a Chazakah on the other's property because - each one allows the other free access to his property (like we explained with regard to Apotropsin on [Tif'eres Yisrael]).

The Tana concludes that a donor who gives a gift and brothers who divide their property - acquire with the subsequent Kinyan Chazakah (seeing as the one does so with the other's consent).

The third case that he adds to this list is - someone who acquires the property of a Ger who died without heirs (who does not require anybody's consent).

Each of these acquires the property in question by means of ...

'Na'al' - putting in a door, or ...

'Gadar' - building a wall, or ....

'Paratz' - demolishing part of an existing wall, creating a breach on the property.

The principle that governs this Chazakah is that - they are all marks of ownership.

Shmuel's father and Levi include 'Shutfin' in our Mishnah, but omit 'Umnin', as we explained there (quoting Rabeinu Gershom). According to Shmuel, the Tana inserts Uman but not Shutaf, since he holds that Shutfin are in fact subject to a Chazakah.

Shmuel follows his reasoning in another statement, where he adds that Shutfin ...

... can also testify for each other, meaning that - if the shared article is stolen whilst it is being used by one Shutaf, the other Shutaf may testify on his behalf (against the Ganav [and he is not considered biased, as we shall see later in the Sugya]).

... are Shomrei Sachar on each other, meaning that - if the shared article is stolen whilst it is being used by one Shutaf, he is Chayav to pay his partner for his half of the article.

What makes him a Shomer Sachar is the fact that - his partner would likewise be Chayav if the article was stolen whilst he was using it.

Rebbi Aba asked Rav Yehudah how Shmuel l could say this, seeing as elsewhere, he described a Shutaf as one who goes down to the field with permission. Rav Yehudah replied - by drawing a distinction between a Shutaf who establishes a Chazakah on the entire field and one who establishes it only on half.

There are two opinions as to which of these is a Chazakah and which is not (as we will now explain).

The S'vara to say that he establishes a Chazakah on ...

... the entire field (but not on half of it) is - because some Shutfim tend either to take turns to eat the fruit on an annual basis, or to divide the field, taking half each permanently. Consequently, if one of them allows the other to eat the fruit of the entire field for more than three years, the latter can claim to have established a Chazakah.

... half the field (but not on all of it) is - because other Shutfim tend to take turns of three or four years. Consequently, had they decided to continue with the partnership on other terms, they would have shared the fruits each year, and not divided the field (substantiating the claim of Chazakah).

Ravina establishes both statements of Shmuel where the Shutaf established the Chazakah on the entire field. His Chazakah will not be valid however - if the field is less than eight Amos by eight Amos (rendering it indivisible), in which case Shutfin tend to take turns of three or four years at a stretch, eating the fruits of the entire field (precluding the possibility of one of the Shutfim establishing a Chazakah on it).

At the beginning of the Perek, we discussed a case where the Shifchah that Rami bar Chama and his brother Rav Ukva purchased worked alternate years for each one. That would not be necessary according to Ravina however - because a Shifchah is no different than a field that is not divisible ...

And the reason that they did divide her in this way was - because they were concerned that, after three years, witnesses might not be aware of the fact that they had purchased her be'Shutfus.

We cited Shmuel, who said 'Shutaf ke'Yored bi'Reshus Dami'. Alternatively, he might have said - 'Shutaf Yesh lo Chazakah'.

Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah explains that he preferred to say 'Shutaf ke'Yored bi'Reshus Dami' - because he wanted to teach us that if a Shutaf plants crops in the shared field, he is entitled to take even the crops that have already ripened and are ready for picking, like an Aris ...

... even if it is a field that ought not to have been planted.

In a case where Reuven plants in Shimon's field without permission - he will have the underhand, to take whatever is less of the improvement or his expenses.